Dynamic Points Come to Team Yankee
Opinion Piece By Jim Naughton
DYNAMIC POINTS: IF ENOUGH CUSTOMERS WHINE, THEY’RE RIGHT
A recent FACEBOOK post called attention to a BF plan to introduce DYNAMIC POINTS into Team Yankee. It referred the reader to the Team Yankee website. Since then, there has been a lot discussion in the various TY Groups on social medium.
Couple years back, dynamic points were invented for Flames of War. The ostensible ‘reason’ for this was FOW tournament players had reacted to the Army Point (AP) values of the bread-and-butter tanks of MIDWAR by choosing Lend-Lease Tanks for the Soviets and spamming armored cars. Armored cars worked because they had enough armor and lots of machine guns to tank-assault many infantry units. Lend-Lease tanks like the M3 medium had an extra shot compared to T34s.
This was a ‘test’ that has now lasted roughly four years. My main benefit was that I didn’t have to buy new books. It didn’t affect my lists much (I liked T34s, so there was a modest benefit). Tournament players apparently liked it but my group ditched MIDWAR for LATE WAR and only recently has begun revisiting the period. I didn’t like them overall, but they are now more or less institutionalized.
Now they are coming to Team Yankee. Ugh. You can read all about in the BF post prominent in the TY website.
I’m not opposed to changing AP, but have high expectations of Battlefront’s modeling process, which has so far been ‘spot on’ for TY. At least for tank vs tank.
The first problem with the TY Dynamic Points (hereafter, DP) as published is they have no apparent basis in reality. At least with FOW MIDWAR they had a history-based argument.
No such historical argument exists for the Cold War. Except for a few battalions of M1A1HC (okay, they were M1A1HA – HC is a designation for later production tanks that met some USMC requirements) that fielded in 1989, these are all post-COLD WAR kit, and Russian post-COLD WAR kit is totally absent. Other than a need to ‘refresh’ the game by including DESERT STORM (and perhaps, sell more models), they wouldn’t exist. And DESERT STORM doesn’t explain Leopard 2A5 and the fictional Marder 2.
In fact, the history to 1989 would place just handfuls of these tanks in the field – West German tank production averaged 4-5 A WEEK; the four battalions of M1A1HC existing at WALLFALL represented 13% of USAEUR’s inventory and when POMCUS sets are considered, just 8%.
So the published AP pricing makes perfect sense. But then there’s the tournament set. Tournament Directors lean toward 2.5-hour games, 3 hours as an exception. Finishing a time-limited game encourages less than 100 AP or draconian restrictions on list development. Operating from a different direction, TY morale makes units with just two tanks a time bomb. And there’s that pesky reserve rule requiring 40% off-table in many scenarios. Consider 3xM1A1HC @ 18 AP each. With 100 AP armies, the choice is put the M1A1HC unit in reserve, and fight with 46 AP on table. Or put the M1A1HC unit on table and try and fight over two objectives with one defended by the M1A1HCs and the other defended by six APs. Good luck with that.
Confronted with Hobson’s choices that made SUPERTANK XXX (M1A1HC, LECLERC, CHALLENGER, LEOPARD 2A5) undesirable in tournament play, the tournament set voted to change the rules. I.e., they started whining. Apparently, this was heard on high. The new DP list makes M1A1HC 12 DP, a 33% drop in price, and now, conveniently, a perfect AP size for three tanks to be reserve in a 90-point game.
Why is this bad? My basic thesis is that there is nothing wrong with the published AP at least tank vs tank (the jury’s out on tank vs infantry). If the proposed DPs adjusted ALL TANKS at all increments by 30-35%, it would be fine. It would change the dynamic versus infantry. That isn’t necessarily bad.
How bad is bad? We’ll evaluate using expected values because expected values have the great merit of being additive. Consider a pair of M1A1HC in the open sitting on a single objective. Originally, the pair cost 36 AP. These same points would buy four M1IP. The M1A1HC would position themselves 18.1” from the M1IP EACH TURN and shoot (distance is determined by movement + stabilizers + potential blitz). Shooting is 4 dice per turn, AT=23 vs FA=19+1 or .33 chance of penetration.
FP=.833. 4x.5x.33x.833 = .5 M1A1 expected to die each turn. On the third turn, the M1A1HC must stop dancing and stay within contest distance of the objective. So they drive to flanking positions on their opponents. Now it’s 4x.5x1x.833 = 1.667. The surviving M1IP(s) shoot back killing .833 M1A1HC (if one survived) or 1.667 (if two survived). Looking at all chains, it was roughly 50-50 that the M1IPs would win, making 18 AP the RIGHT COST for M1A1HC.
Now examine the DYNAMIC cost. Three basic M1s are now 23 DP. And they have FA=18. The equation is 4x.5x.5x.833 = .833. In two turns the M1A1HC (24 DP) cause 1.667 casualties, and then they charge and shoot 1.667 more. Total, 3.33 casualties. With the new points, M1s have essentially no chance of beating M1A1HC.
It gets worse if the M1A1HC are the aggressor. This occurs roughly 40% of the time depending on the mission stance selected. By staying away from the objectives and sniping the opposing tanks, they will win eventually, but maybe not in a time-limit tournament. The M1s and M1IPs can at best draw.
A similar analysis can be done for tanks that are always penetrated at all ranges (e.g Leopard 1). Without dragging through the detail, a single M1A1HC will kill .883 NATO tanks in this category every turn, so in the pivotal fourth turn the single Leopard that must survive this barrage will probably kill the M1A1HC. Making the right equivalence FIVE Leopards 1s for one M1A1HC. With the published points, closer to the right cost than with YNAMIC POINTS where you can only field four Leopard 1s for one M1A1HC. And lose this battle virtually every time.
With ROF=1 tanks, the requirement is four tanks to take the fatal shots plus at least two, and with slow-firing ROF=1 tanks (e.g. T55), at least seven total are required. And if their TO-HIT number is 3+ like most PACT and ARAB tanks, the single M1A1HC will kill 1.112 each turn, adding one to the requirement (8 T55/T55AM2s, costing 8-12 AP). Perversely, the recommended change makes SPAM more, not less attractive because of 100 AP limitations.
Balanced reporting, there are changes to PACT tanks. The T80 is the big winner here…dropping from 88 AP for ten T80 to 60DP, roughly 33%. But who drives a unit of T80s at less than 100 AP? The change for three T80s is from 22 AP to 18 DP, only 18%. Better than 1 DP adjustment for M1s, but for some reason different than SUPERTANK XXX.
The new numbers make six T80s in two units an exact matchup for three M1A1HC. The T80 can’t affect the M1AHC at long range so must drive for a flank, suffering .56 kills each turn but when the M1A1HCs turn at bay taking another 2.5 casualties for a total of 3.67. So the DP reduction for T80 isn’t adequate to make the T80 competitive. With (theoretically) more M1A1HC in games, the five T80s should cost 36 DP.
T64BV and T72B receive even less adjustment – 1 DP at the three-tank level (7%) for both tanks and 9 DP at the 10-tank level for the T72B (16%). The T64BV is the big winner in the ‘competition’ between these two tanks getting a 11 DP savings at the top end (19%). The DP-prices are the same for this pair until you get to six tanks, and then (incomprehensibly) the less capable T72B becomes more expensive.
T64 and T72 receive no love from DP at the 3-tank level but become generally cheaper after that. T72 finishes at 5 DP savings for 10 tanks (10%) and T64 gets 11 DP (20%). The disparity is surprising considering that the basic T72 has received the most complaints from PACT players for ‘overpriced.’
Like NATO’s Leopard 1 and M60/MAGACH 6, the T72M and T55/T62s are conspicuous by lack of mention. Interestingly enough, Finland’s T72FM1 gets a small adjustment. PACT T72Bs have restrictive fielding and combined with minimal DP adjustments at the lower levels, PACT players can confidently say ‘no benefit’.
While many will point to the adjustments for PACT bread-and-butter tanks at the top levels and say ‘enough’, the changes at the 3/4/5 tank level (other than T80) are barely noticeable. That’s where many PACT players organize their units.
In my view, the selective application of DYNAMIC POINTS breaks the delicate relationship between tank AP values. IMHO, the cure is worse than the disease.
The other feature of current DP is an across the board increase in AAA and SAM costs. The rationale is that it’s too easy to kill strike air so the tournament players ignore it. The real problem is that Battlefront created a cornucopia of air defense systems, not that the relative vulnerabilities are wrong. For example, the West German Division had 36 GEPARDs and ZERO ROLANDs.
TY gives a force with a single company up to 12 GEPARDS and 6 Rolands. This is LUDICROUS to put it mildly. ROLANDs were devoted to protecting the Corps rear areas and the typical company was lucky if it was protected by TWO Gepards.
Ironically, at the same time as DYNAMIC POINTS would make SUPERTANK XXX attractive, it is making it harder to protect them. Previously the ‘best value’ American air defense was 4xVADS and 4xSTINGER HMMWV costing 10 AP. You could step up to SGT YORK for 2 AP, gaining an attractive capability versus ground targets.
Now the ‘best value’ air defense costs 15 DP, and the SGT YORK pushes this to 18 DP. Forget about CHAPARRAL at 12 DP for four vehicles. So if you form a M1A1HC tank company with seven vehicles (the minimum in collective wisdom) you still can’t afford ‘best value’ air defense plus infantry or mortars at 100 DP.
This theme resonates through the DYNAMIC POINTS list. Some weapons, like SA-9 GOPHER are hit particularly hard with a 100% DP increase. One outlier is HINDs cost one DP more (although NATO Hunter-Killers are not affected…careful, BF, your prejudice is showing).
So instead of fixing the rules about strike air or REDUCING their points, DP makes flak and PACT helicopters more expensive. Go figure.
To sum up, DYNAMIC POINTS represents a big change. I don’t think it’s warranted, and unless the change is 30-35% for all tanks, it breaks the interrelationship between tanks. A hedgehog defense with two SUPERTANK XXX behind an infantry platoon with tough AT can only be broken with time and artillery, so for short (tournament) games this is the way to get more draws, not less.
Whatever your feelings, visit the TEAM YANKEE website and take the time to vote. Don’t be the average citizen in a democracy who pays no attention to the issues and votes the straight party ticket, or worse, stays home on Election Day. The clock is ticking to register your concerns – only three weeks left.
Instead of upping AA units pts , they should have limited the number of units .
How many Dutch lists are seen with a full brigades worth of PRTLs ?
Correct in all respects, Les. Most armies operated AA units in pairs, not four-packs or six-packs even though the admin unit was a ‘battery’. There just weren’t enough systems. The only exception were the Czechs, who built almost 900 PRAGA for a 15-division force, roughly 60/division or 15/regiment. But then there is the pesky 2-model morale rule.
The way I see is is they tried to solve 2 problems (or “problems”) with dynamic points (hereafter DP).
1. Air is viewed as uncompetitive.
2. No one takes the ‘super tanks’ in competition
for (1) There are 2 approaches Air becomes cheaper or AA more expensive. Currently the amount of aircraft one can take (unless Afgantsy or US Cav) is limited by force diagram. If air is cheaper every company attack has a flight of strike aircraft and 2 of helis supporting it and 2 (or maybe 3) units of AA for the enemies triple air. If you make AA really expensive you might be able to take 12 Gepards and 6 Rolands but that becomes virtually your entire force (this is 62DP it was 39AP).
I think making AA more expensive makes a lot of sense, the problem is the execution.
Some AA is dramatically underpriced relative to others, and some of that cheap-AA is really really good being used against ground (PTRLs, Gepards, Marksmans – all basically the same).
Some AA units (like blowpipes were penalized for being usable for ground targets but e.g. Gepards and Rolands were paying the same price 0.5pt per ROF-dice (same firepower) but Gepards are great at shredding APC/IFVs – so you never saw Rolands. In DP the Rolands (6@ 9–>20) have got more expensive than Gepards (6@ 15–>21), its even worse.
They should have used the re-price to re-balance the AA and put up the under-priced AAA (guns) more (2x) versus the SAM missiles (especially the unarmoured ones like Chaparall / Gecko) maybe a (1.25x to 1.5x). Unfortunately in several cases they did the opposite (Roland, Rapier).
The ability for NATO to SPAM AAA is basically limited to the West Germans and Dutch – but its worst for the Dutch because their PTRLs were so cheap (IIRC Aussie Nationals was won (last year?) with a PTRL spam list) All the other forces UK / US / Fin etc. can only take AAA in support and only 1x unit.
for (2) its more interesting, people have been asking for a way to “make the 1995 tanks work in the 1985 game”, suggesting something like the LateWar Leviathans min point % spend or Late-War-Team-Yankee points.
This is basically the latter – which is more satisfactory IMHO as you can still take an infantry force (but maybe MILAN-2 and TOW-2 should have become free…).
However, I think the thing they missed out is the mid-range tanks. Your examples of M1 vs M1A1HC show that the M1/IPM1s should have dropped further in points (maybe a 1 point per tank rather than 0.5 point). I would add that the Chieftains should also have dropped at least a point (choose a 3xStillbrew at 21pt or 26pt 3xChallenger?)
If one doesn’t just consider tank vs tank, there are some ways (artillery, aircraft) where virtually all tanks are equally vulnerable, so ‘all-eggs-in-one-M1A1HC’ might still hurt.
I think the AAAV SPAM comes from BF NOT taking a hard look at the real-life availability of the systems. Putting a full flak BATTERY in a company-size formation is a mistake, no matter how twisted the justification. Particularly when the division (39+ companies) only has 36 AAAV. Making the AAAV SPAM sit back requires some attack helicopters. So I don’t think points is the answer – they should fix the lists. DP won’t induce me to use strike air save in high points battles. Neither will making flak more expensive. The erratic nature of strike air and relative high cost for a ROF=1 system is still there. While ‘best value’ flak arrays may be more expensive, they still cost less than two tanks (unless playing Leo 1/M60/T55 etc)
If BF/tournament players want to see more SUPERTANK XXX they need to adjust ALL points by 30-35%. IF they proceed as intended, they are going to see more, not less SPAM because they will make TIER 2 tanks extinct. TIER 2s have enough collective ROF to make SPAM dicey. Not so, SUPERTANK XXX. The negligible drops in TIER 2 on both sides of the CURTAIN makes TIER 3 more attractive because you need mass to cross the deadly space.
Agreed that there are other mechanisms to kill SUPERTANK XXX but they are all low odds and influenced by terrain and DANGER CLOSE. I.e., not reliable. So leave the points alone, I say, and let tournament directors figure out how to please their customers. Higher points and different victory conditions immediately come to mind.
I agree with you on the problem absolutely.
They should have put “Tier 2” (M60, Cheiftan, Leo1, M1) down in price too. I disagree that everything should have gone down, leave T55s where they are, that makes them relatively less scary tank-to-tank, but 36 T55s is scarier to infantry than 2x M1A1HC surely? and harder to wipe them all out with ATGMs / Airstrikes.
What they did was “Tier 1 and Merkavas”, for NATO at least.
The Soviet update is super weird with T72Bs being more expensive than T64BVs, and the T72s and T64s are still way to close in price not to upgrade to ERA (and from T72->T64).
However the reason everyone took 3x units of WP tanks was because of the big points break for 3 tank units (and it was crazy for some tanks, T80 HQ-3-3-3 – 76AP, plt of 10 was 88AP, T64 similar 44AP vs 55AP) which never made any sense to me, they have almost got rid of that now.
They basically moved bigger platoons down in price to match the 3x ones, and dropped the price of the T80. They needed an actual price drop.
With the AA you can either say “you can only take 1 unit” or make them so expensive that people drop down from the “standard” being double AA to just taking one, in your article example VADS+stinger used to cost 10AP, so drop to just VADS in DP for 9DP. Its still probable that SPAAA will end up over represented, but maybe not so much, and hopefully people will stop putting it in lists with the intention of using it against ground targets (ADATS, PTRLs, Gepards, in that order).
2023 Aussie TY winner had , 4 Leo 2A4 , 8 YPR-765 PRAT , 4 M113C&V , 3 SP 120mm motars ( plus YPR765 OP ) , 10 YPR765 ( CHQ and 3 short platoons ) , 9 PTRL . So basically a reinforced Coy sized combat team , with all the brigades SAAA .
Leopard 2 Tank Eskadron
HQ 1x Leopard 2 =10
3x Leopard 2 =30
3x GPMG team with M72 anti-tank
2x Carl Gustav anti-tank team
2x M47 Dragon missile team
3x YPR-765 =7
4x YPR-765 PRAT (iTOW) =6
2x M113 C&V =2
3x PRTL =6
YPR-765 Pantserinfanterie Compagnie
HQ 1x FAL rifle team
1x YPR-765 =1
3x GPMG team with M72 anti-tank
2x Carl Gustav anti-tank team
2x M47 Dragon missile team
3x YPR-765 =7
3x GPMG team with M72 anti-tank
2x Carl Gustav anti-tank team
2x M47 Dragon missile team
3x YPR-765 =7
4x YPR-765 PRAT (iTOW) =6
2x M113 C&V =2
3x M106 120mm =3
3x PRTL =6
SUPPORTS
3x PRTL =6
1x YPR-765 OP =1
TOTAL 100
exactly. The flak units (except for Czech Praga) are too big and in many cases, too numerous.
DP (IFYKYK) really hurts the Canadians. Sure Leo 2s are cheaper but the main reason to play Canadians is 6 ADATS. They are the main striking force of the Canadian lists. Leo 1s were not adjusted and Leo 2s are still too expensive to run a full Co. Canuck infantry, while good at defending assaults with CGs, lack a long range AT option. (no dropping 3 CGs for one Eyrx is not a good deal).
DPs has made me move to Americans in the ACAV formations. 6 Apaches makes a whole lot of sense in the DP world…
thanks for helping me make my point. Some lists/armies are really toasted by these changes, which are being driven by the ‘needs of the few, or the one.’
The faction that are the “winners” of DP are the French because they get massive reduction in price for LeClerc and they have the super-cheap auto-include “remove the enemies AA” 20mm Gazelle, now killing AA units that cost 1.5x to 2x more. They also get the only other unit reduced in price getting cheaper hammerhead AT23 launchers.
The Americans and to a lesser extent UK, with super tanks and good air options are also winners.
Most Nordic nations (and non-Israel oil wars) are losers in DP as they already really struggle with high-armour tanks, lacking AT23+, and now will see 1.5x more of them.
Actually Canadians didn’t do too badly from the AA changes. Now 4 UK rapiers cost 14DP and cannot hurt any ground unit, but 4 ADATS cost 15DP with their awesome missile.
The TUA launchers that Canada got in the last book can be AT23, and are less points than ADATS, so surely a reasonable long-range AT option, especially as they have hammerhead.
Wikipedia claims there were only ever 36 ADATs, so taking 6 ADATS actually makes Les’ point every company team is taking 1/6 of the entire production run, I expect Canada fields more than 2 battalions.
> (no dropping 3 CGs for one Eyrx is not a good deal)
I thought you had to swap all 3xCGs for 3xEryx ?
Canada’s ADATs is just another example of superabundant AAA.
IIRC only 4 ( out of 23 made ) made it to Europe , before the end of the cold war .
@ H M ,
M113 mech inf:
Replace all Carl Gustav anti-tank teams with C1 rifle teams with Eryx missile for +1 point each.
That is… certainly a take… It makes some interesting assumptions. Dynamic points were indisputably healthy for midwar and I, like many, am happy with this first step in balancing for TY. It doesn’t solve the inherent issue with WARPAC spam but a lot of people enjoy being able to play some of the gen 3 tanks.
Any complaints about availability of a weapon system relating to points is inherently flawed. It’s a game, not a simulation. Have you played “The Campaign for North Africa”? I would recommend that if you are looking for realism at that level. But I do understand and respect when someone says: “I don’t use marder2’s/Sgt. Yorks because they were not fielded.”
As for a 33pt reduction on the spam tanks, some of them are too cheap to benefit from the pts decrease. Leo 1’s are truely prolific at their current point values, so I would question their addition to dynamic points. Besides, 33% decrease across the board doesn’t mean 33% more super tanks, it means 33% more spam.
Your direct math is reductionary and ignores a lot of the soft facts. 6 T80’s have a lot of benefits over 3 M1a1HC’s you ignored: Brutal, better range with the missile, better stats across the board, better ability to assualt, loss of 1 T80 is a loss of only 1/6th your firepower to 1/3 of the Abrams, mineplows, and possibly most importantly, 2 maneuver groups to 1.
The complaint about 40% reserves is part of playing a game that tries to be fun for both players. Why would anyone pick attack if your opponent has 100% of their gun line ready to destroy your entire attacking army? If you don’t want difficult reserves, only pick attack or build a list that anticipates the possibility. I love the Frech AMX-10rc clown cars, but they struggle with reserve and I have to play around that limitation.
Finally, the changes to AA are interesting. I get what they are trying to do. More big tanks mean more aircraft to counter them. Dual purpose AA should go up as gepards are probably the single best unit in the game for the pts. Missile only AA (with the glaring exception of the british rapier) should have stayed at that pt level. You are taking the risk of wasting pts with single purpose AA if your opponent doesn’t have aircraft.
Nice article, Jim. I totally agree with the AA argument…way too many on the table for support of small units— especially when players take them for their ground-attack aspect rather than AA function. Yes, I’m talking to you German and Russky players! (joke).
And yeah, players like the big tanks but this use of dynamic points to make them cheaper really does change the game in favor of theses tanks, most of which were not around at the time of “Team Yankee”.
BF really needs to split TY now into three eras like FoW: Early, Middle and Late TY to even out the disparity a bit.
Not sure early-middle-late is really practical in TY. T62M are still in combat today (I’ve seen pictures!). WWII had years of tank combat to ‘take out the trash’ and the Germans made a business out of recycling old hulls eg Hetzer/STGIII or CHAR B flamethrowers. The CFE Treaty – signed after the COLD WAR ended – is the only reason the Soviets got rid of their T55 inventory – to other parties. And NATO is dusting off Leo Is to sell/give to the Ukraine. WE sank the M60s to create artificial reefs when we ran out of customers. Nobody else did that. There’s nothing wrong with TY that can’t be cured by TDs being creative.
I think three eras might be pushing it until we get the next round of “super tanks”, (the Leo2A6 gun is on the sprue, and the M1A2 needs maybe just a extra sight on turret, which could be resin like the APU).
We certainly could have taken 1985 and 1995 as “Early” and “Late” though… (maybe push ‘late’ a little further so we can have Chally2 😉 – which would be the only thing missing from Europe, until Polish K2s in 2020s)
There is some historical basis for using Shilkas as anti-infantry in urban combat IIRC, as they had better gun elevation than BMPs (and were already being replaced by Tungstas) , but Gepards were definitely too few and expensive.
Gepard ammo load per barrel was 320 AA and 20 AP . The 40 armour-piercing rounds are normally fired singly with the guns alternating, they are also intended for self defence against light armoured ground targets .
I’ve always said ‘should be one shot’ but nobody wants to hear that.
the basis for using ZSU in urban combat was zero air threat. And the Soviet idea of urban combat in 1985 was fuel-air explosive bombs followed by 2S4 mortars (and towed version of same) stirring the rubble. As long as the cities were unoccupied SACEUR was faced with the humanitarian disaster and it put pressure on WG to surrender. And, if SACEUR was getting frisky with special weapons, they became hostages against ‘first use.’
welcome to this version of the party!
point by point – 1. Not complaining, simply observing that with one exception (T80U) SUPERTANK XXX didn’t exist in RW 1989, one (M1A1HA) barely existing in 1989. If the BF crew wants to pretend they could have existed in 1985 [and they do – read the WEST GERMAN book closely] it would have been in field-experiment numbers, and FIVE on any 1985 battlefield is about the maximum you should see in a company action. So the points in the books and the limitations resulting are therefore QUITE APPROPRIATE.
2. I never heard of anyone complaining his tanks are too cheap. Reducing T55AM from 7 to 5 for the first 5 x Tank increment would be welcomed by PACT players.
3. REDUCTIONARY? Why didn’t you just say ‘opposed to the change?’ Soft facts apply to everybody and my comparison is purposely kept simple. T80s don’t have thermal, so a wash with soft, T80s die 33% of the time to a hit from M1A1HC, and can’t hit back from the front EVER, and have ROF=1. So they have a gross inferiority in the matchup and if the USA player lets his infantry get overrun…that’s a player headspace problem. Leopard 1 with ‘brutal’ are what, 1 point adjustment per 3-pack? I wouldn’t complain either way. The M830 extant in TY days had less HE than a 120mm mortar (FP=3) so FP=2 vs infantry is generous.
4. In the article my ‘complaint’ about reserves is really an observation about how RESERVES interact with HIGH AP cost TEAMS combined with TOURNAMENT games at LOW AP limits and 2.5 hours. Other places I’ve suggested going back to 50% units as an alternative to DYNAMIC POINTs. I rarely saw 4xM1 Abrams or 3 x Leo 2 in reserve unless playing ‘NO RETREAT’ back in V1.
5. You say potato, I say Poe-tah-toe. The AA changes are APPALLING when the problem is (1) to many AA units permitted, and most are too large; the strike air costs too much for what it can do (10 points for a effective ROF = .5 [every other turn] missile]. I have bunches of BF aircraft models and won’t use them in an under 100 AP game because they are outperformed by attack helicopters and tanks.
My apologies, but this is somehow a weird ranting article focusing on selected topics while ignoring others entirely.
I give a couple examples:
– the tank on tank shootout discussion doesn’t work like this in game. The general Nato issue is that you don’t get the shots out and are overrun. The couple Nato noble tanks will never kill the swarm. For them to be any competitive they need to be cheaper. period.
– the key element of BMP atgm prowess is not mentioned. yes they are not mbts but play a key role in the issue.
– strike aircraft are sucky because they die too fast. tornadoes look great on paper but the need to range in makes them useless, especially at 2 planes
– “go figure”: pact hinds can atgm on the move, Hunter killers cannot, and need to survive a round on the field. sufficient explanation?
etc etc
my apologies, but the main argumentation lines are too theoretical in my perception.
I am looking forward to dynamic points, currently half of TY is unplayable in a somewhat competitive setting. getting some movement into T55 vs M60 pair ups is well over due.
sorry for the confusion. First, DP is narrowly focused today on making SUPERTANKS more appealing. That’s the topic. Unfortunately the massive decrease in DP cost makes OTHER TANKS less appealing. That’s the point of picking examples like M1 and Leopard 1. I’ve responded to complaints about tank XXX is overpriced by doing similar paired analysis and found, generally speaking, the printed AP cost corresponds to the value you would expect given the results of the matchup. THAT CAN’T BE COINCIDENCE. So BF does something very similar in setting base points, and adjusts for soft benefits. Agreed that the performance in-game is different. But SUPERTANK doesn’t have to kill the swarm, it just has to assist the infantry in protecting an objective. A SUPERTANK platoon imbedded in a infantry platoon on an objective is pretty tough. Two tanks pretty much guarantees a tank assault fails even if the infantry is armed with spitballs. BMPs and NATO dug-in ATGMS are not covering in DP, hence no discussion. If BF was worried about BMP swarms they would make AAAV cheaper, not more expensive. They didn’t, case closed. Strike aircraft should cost half the current price, which was set up before BF authorized all kind of excessive concentrations of flak (in the beginning, there was only ZSU and VULCAN). However, once aircraft appear on table they should die like flies – that was the Israeli experience in Yom Kippur War. You can’t countermeasure AAA.
HINDs are not hard at all to take down (typically 3+ to hit and 4+ aircraft save compared to 6+ to hit 5+ aircraft – 1/3 effective hit per ROF shooting HINDs compared to 1/18 vs H/K) and have much shorter range than H/K aircraft so my calculation is all helicopters should cost more, or none. I’ve played HINDs at 6 AP before and found their main use is forcing other players to put their flak on table in scenarios where reserves apply. So we’ll agree to disagree on that one. But whatever your views, make sure you take the survey…two weeks left